What is Terrorism Worth?

Comments

BTW health insurance companies DONT DO ANY MEDICAL TREATMENTS! they are just the greedy little middlemen. Just like that guy who gets drugs from the supplier then sells it at an inflated market.

this shows a fundamental lack of understanding on what insurance is.

insurance covers RISK. when you buy insurance you are weighing risks. i have always known that. if you feel that by you giving them money they are just taking it, then opt out of insurance and take that risk. they are offering a service. a service of covering your cost in case you need medical attention in trade you pay them monthly. i know they do nt dole out medicine. I have worked in an insurance office before.

phobicsquirrel:

Are you religious Kuzi? if so then what part of helping people and doing the greater good did you miss?

what part of "thou shall not steal" did YOU miss?

dont preach to me about charity. i have set up fund raisers for St, judes, i take part in the MS walk every year. i donate to soup kitchens.

the true benevolence of private charity is the enemy of the forced altruism of taxation.

phobicsquirrel:

And yes, individual rights is at stake. Why don't you go to a free clinic or roving clinic and see the people there. Tell them that it's their fault for not getting insurance. Do that and then let me know how it goes.

dude, i wrk with 75 people that all make under 25k a year. i see them every day. i know their pain. but even they understand that it is wrong to steal to get medical coverage.

i read an article recently that ended with this:
"A welfare statist recently asked what we should do with all the poor people who will line up outside public hospitals that will close if we dont extend socialized medicine. My reply: Give them all a piece of paper that reads, Americans are not your slaves."
link

phobicsquirrel:

Healthcare should be a right, as we as a society should be better than what

this goes to show that you have no idea what i right is. Healthcare is not a right. it cannot be. Rights include only negative obligations. your right to speak freely and express your thoughts costs me nothing, it only requires that i dont stop you. your right to life doesnt cost anyone anything, only that they dont take it from you. your right to keep what you produce doesnt cost me anything, only that i dont take it from you. rights have no costs to them. you are born with them. you are not handed them by some government. they cannot be taken away. they cannot be given. they can be recognized, or they can be violated.

Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
ts a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something (health care) means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his lifethe life that he alone owns.

phobicsquirrel:

we are doing and whatever happened to America being the leader, now we are the follower and even that is a joke.

america was a leader when it had a constitution that was designed to protect the rights of the individuals. now we ARE followers because we are doing what every country has done for thousands of years.

for three thousand years of western history before the founding of America every individual was seen fundamentally as the servant of the state. In some way or another, if the king called, if the lord called, if the aristocrat called, if the warlord called, then you were bound and determined to serve him. This practice stretched from the tribute of the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Near Easterners even through the Greeksfor all their great achievementsand through the Romans, through the medieval period, right up to the modern day. The idea has been that citizens are servants of the government.

The radical American founding idea was that the government was the servant of the individuala servant with a single, specific task. The purpose of government, the very reason we have a government, is to secure and protect our rights. but now we are going back. the governemnt is forcing us to be servants again. it is not protecting our rights like it was set up to do. it is violating them by making up "rights" where they do not exist.

phobicsquirrel:

Being screened at an airport is one thing, but having to take your shoes off, patted down, and now put through a machine that will basically be putting you in the nude on basis of preventing terror attacks is absurd!

especially because it is government mandated and the fourth amendment is supposed to protect our right to privacy.

phobicsquirrel:

btw the bill hasn't even been a BILL yet. And yes that mandate sucks but I do feel that if people start having to pay for it they'll pay attention and maybe, just maybe the people will out speak the big lobby for you beloved private insurance companies because oh my, saving people lives and not having them pay out the ass for basic coverage is really so bad.

the bill, should it become one, will actually RAISE the cost of insurance. it will require that preexisting conditions be covered. this means that it is forcing insurance to do something other than what it was intended to do (and thats cover risk). It will cost more to "insure" those people with preexisting and all the other people will have to soak up the cost so the company can stay solvent. its like calling up state farm and asking them to insure your home when its already on fire. since they know 100% its gunna cost them money to fix it they will charge you more. they are in the business of risk. the higher the risk, the more money they stand to lose. the lower the risk, the less money it takes to be covered.

well as I see it, I'd rather have a small amount of my pay go towards a system that will let me see a doctor or have an operation when I need it.

uh.. you just described insurance...

phobicsquirrel:

So what your all about is, only have those who can afford to pay whatever to get things they need? Well then why have a government? Government is there to bring order and basic needs.

NO. the government cannot give you basic needs. communism doesnt work and is immoral. we have government in the US to protect the rights of the individual. that is all.

Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom. this is the issue with the searches, and this is the same issue with health care.

phobicsquirrel:

I have a lot of friends in all parts of the country and I swear this healthcare system in this country is all Fd up.

you're right is messed up. but the government is at the heart of this as well. as discussed before:
Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.
If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.
Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.

phobicsquirrel:

I know you are all about protecting corporations as you buy into the Reagan philosophy that Govt is bad but really it seems that large companies are the ones who are.

SOME companies are. and companies that violate the rights of individuals need to be punished. how many times do i need to say that before you believe it? i have said it DOZENS of times but you always seem to gloss over that.

BTW i am NOT following Reagan. he had his BS issues as well. i am following the philosophy that individuals have rights and government as a general entity should protect those rights not do what they are doing now... infringing on them.

phobicsquirrel:

Look at what they have done to our own Govt and the legislation that has been being passed over the last 30 years? Your a smart guy but the very people who you defend and say we are better under are the very one's responsible for most of the issues we face today.

im not defending any policy that violates the rights of individuals. because you "feel" that health insurance should be a "right" doesnt make it one. because people chose to not buy it or cant afford to buy it or because a company wont sell you a policy because they will lose money on it is not a violation of rights.

phobicsquirrel:

Yeah sure, I hate seeing people leeching on the govt system, but really most aren't. I've seen and talked to many of them who are on some sort of assistance but don't want to leave it as they get a bit more from that than working at taco bell and when you take in that they get free health care and are at home with their kids (if they have any) they don't have to pay for childcare. Which I might add is HUGE!

For example, my best friend who works with me is with his GF who has 2 kids but is on state assistance, gets food stamps and gets free healthcare (oregon health plan). She just finished up her 4 year degree and is in the first year of dental school. Now my friend and I make decent money, not rich but well off. If they got married she no longer would get all the assistance and therefore she would not be able to get any schooling done and they would be broke, very broke but not enough for aide. They pay 1400 dollars a month for child care, school is expensive, more so now since she is in the dental program and they keep making her pay for supplies that are very expensive on short notice (like she had to shell out 650 bucks for a drill). And let's not forget about healthcare and a place to live. It does suck having to pay for services that I don't need or can't qualify even though my wife and I would like to have medicare or medicaid but I know that it's there if I ever need it and it does do good things.

no, i hate to tell you... they are working the system. they have found out how to take more money away from taxpayers by use of government. they have voted themselves money at someone else's expense. it is theft. government sanctioned theft. just because it isnt against the law doesnt make it moral.

im sure it is far smaller than .1% given the 1.6 billion people in the world that follow Islam

Yeah... but how many terrorists are there in comparison to the 6.7 billion people in the world. We're already looking for a needle in a heystack. And you can stop 99.999% of them. All it really takes is for 1 to get through and we'll all be having a completely different conversation.

i am familiar with this argument

Thomas Sowel (sp?) made a similar argument (more torture related though) in a very good one-liner:

How many American lives are you prepared to sacrifice, in order to spare a terrorist from experiencing distress?

it is a very difficult argument. what is interesting is that he seems to contradict himself when he talks about that decision i mentioned in one of the above posts (between Freedom and Utopian ideals) i used his one liner in that very post: If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.

Is it the government's place to protect(preemptively) our freedoms(here specifically our right to breathe air) or just go after those who have violated those rights(punish those that infringe)?

You dont want to unfairly single any one out(proflile)and are against the government mandating any security that may invade privacy.(and I agree there valid agruements against both)but yet there some **** ,shoving explosives in their privates, hellbent on going to see Allah and taking 300 unwitting souls with them.

a police man (and correct me if im wrong) can only search my car if he has probable cause that i am committing a crime. if my car, from all angles looks to be in compliance with the law, even if i have a loaded rocket launcher in the trunk, cannot be randomly searched. the basis for this rule stems from the Fourth Amendment that states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

government orders to search everyone with a machine that can see through your clothes because you might be that one person to commit a crime seems to be in violation of the fourth amendment.

The problem with this is that it is your car that you own. you are not travelling in your car, you are travelling in a privately owned aircraft, therefore the fourth doesnt apply. Same thing when you go into a club. They are allowed to search or pat you down.

I have to let someone watch me go pee almost every job i get, how much more private can that act be? Are my rights being violated?

the terms of your job ask you to waive your rights so you can work there. if you dont want to giver up that right for that moment you dont have to work there. the government mandating airlines to use that machine is the part thats the problem. i agree dogs are effective. the government mandating that machine is telling a private company how to run their business.

if the government didnt mandate security, im sure after 9/11 airlines themselves would be upping security just to hold up business. if that were the case you could chose what airline you felt violated your rights less, then a ticket would be you waiving your rights.

This goes far beyond private business. Part of the governments job is to ensure the safety of the public. By not mandading security on airlines the government would be doing a diservice to the public. When planes crash they dont only kill the people flying.... Also when was the last time an airline upped the ante withing their security network? They have all been very adverse to all the security advancements that have been mandated due to costs.

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to
ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics' intent on
killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile
certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women,
little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who
are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with
metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but
leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of
profiling.

And guess who just bombed London ?

Careful here, you are at more risk of jeopardizing your rights by allowing profiling then fighting security at airports. If you allow profiling for muslims(which is a religion, not a race) then you start going down a very tricky path. There are also as many Asian and African muslims as there are middle eastern, so who do you look for????

When in the name of f*ck did profit become an evil word? Why is it a crime for a company to succeed???

it seems so. those who do succeed are forced to give up what they earned through their own hands and minds.

Well my issues with the statement that was made is Phobic said the companies stock went up 117%, but nowhere in that did it say they had done anything illegal or violated anyone's rights at all. If they had done so, then I would say yes, something needs to be done to stop this. If they did not however, then that is success! That is what made this country great. Why is it when a business succeeds it is a bad thing, but when the government fails, financially at least, this is seen as a success? Look at Medicare which you praise and love so much Phobic, and show me one single year since it was created that it did not operate in the red... Then tell me how this is sustainable in the long run.

When in the name of f*ck did profit become an evil word? Why is it a crime for a company to succeed???

it seems so. those who do succeed are forced to give up what they earned through their own hands and minds.

Well my issues with the statement that was made is Phobic said the companies stock went up 117%, but nowhere in that did it say they had done anything illegal or violated anyone's rights at all. If they had done so, then I would say yes, something needs to be done to stop this. If they did not however, then that is success! That is what made this country great. Why is it when a business succeeds it is a bad thing, but when the government fails, financially at least, this is seen as a success? Look at Medicare which you praise and love so much Phobic, and show me one single year since it was created that it did not operate in the red... Then tell me how this is sustainable in the long run.

To add to this a bit, private insurance companies like were mentioned earlier create wealth when their stocks go up. If the stocks go up 117% then that is money for investors and anyone who holds stock in the company which helps people who are investing for their retirement and a number of other things, plus it allows this company to expand and create more jobs. On the other hand what does Medicare create??? One thing, DEBT... All medicare creates is debt for our country as a whole. As limited as it is now it runs in the red year after year after year. How is expanding an already failing program a better solution to the health care problems in this country? About the ONLY good thing I can see about the health care legislation being currently debated in congress, is that it cuts medicare.

When in the name of f*ck did profit become an evil word? Why is it a crime for a company to succeed???

it seems so. those who do succeed are forced to give up what they earned through their own hands and minds.

Well my issues with the statement that was made is Phobic said the companies stock went up 117%, but nowhere in that did it say they had done anything illegal or violated anyone's rights at all. If they had done so, then I would say yes, something needs to be done to stop this. If they did not however, then that is success! That is what made this country great. Why is it when a business succeeds it is a bad thing, but when the government fails, financially at least, this is seen as a success? Look at Medicare which you praise and love so much Phobic, and show me one single year since it was created that it did not operate in the red... Then tell me how this is sustainable in the long run.

To add to this a bit, private insurance companies like were mentioned earlier create wealth when their stocks go up. If the stocks go up 117% then that is money for investors and anyone who holds stock in the company which helps people who are investing for their retirement and a number of other things, plus it allows this company to expand and create more jobs. On the other hand what does Medicare create??? One thing, DEBT... All medicare creates is debt for our country as a whole. As limited as it is now it runs in the red year after year after year. How is expanding an already failing program a better solution to the health care problems in this country? About the ONLY good thing I can see about the health care legislation being currently debated in congress, is that it cuts medicare.

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And actually on this thread, the guy who started it is the one that steered us onto this topic. But seriously, would you consider 2.2% outrageous profit?

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And actually on this thread, the guy who started it is the one that steered us onto this topic. But seriously, would you consider 2.2% outrageous profit?

No I wouldn't. I would however suggest that like other investors, if this 2.2% didn't represent a very good return on investment... these guy's would be looking for somewhere else to invest. I don't cry any crocodile tears for the MASSIVE insurance companies. They are doing just fine, and since 9/11 they have been experiencing some fantastic returns.What with accounting being what it is, I wonder how accurate that 2.2% number is? Also what is it 2.2% of what?

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And actually on this thread, the guy who started it is the one that steered us onto this topic. But seriously, would you consider 2.2% outrageous profit?

No I wouldn't. I would however suggest that like other investors, if this 2.2% didn't represent a very good return on investment... these guy's would be looking for somewhere else to invest. I don't cry any crocodile tears for the MASSIVE insurance companies. They are doing just fine, and since 9/11 they have been experiencing some fantastic returns.What with accounting being what it is, I wonder how accurate that 2.2% number is? Also what is it 2.2% of what?

Well the article it says that it is 2.2% of revenues in the latest annual measure. I don't feel sorry for these companies either, but to say something should be done about their outrageous profits is ridiculous. I know you did not say that so don't think that is directed towards you.

As to the thread derailing, does it really matter? I was actually just making a joke man.

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And actually on this thread, the guy who started it is the one that steered us onto this topic. But seriously, would you consider 2.2% outrageous profit?

No I wouldn't. I would however suggest that like other investors, if this 2.2% didn't represent a very good return on investment... these guy's would be looking for somewhere else to invest. I don't cry any crocodile tears for the MASSIVE insurance companies. They are doing just fine, and since 9/11 they have been experiencing some fantastic returns.What with accounting being what it is, I wonder how accurate that 2.2% number is? Also what is it 2.2% of what?

Well the article it says that it is 2.2% of revenues in the latest annual measure. I don't feel sorry for these companies either, but to say something should be done about their outrageous profits is ridiculous. I know you did not say that so don't think that is directed towards you.

As to the thread derailing, does it really matter? I was actually just making a joke man.

I wonder if people are really railing against the profits of these companies or is it that they are making these kinds of profit while treating people so poorly. Having yourself cut off by your insurance company because you or a family member actually has to use that insurance is wrong. I know that you and Kuzi too, feel that this is wrong and should be stopped as well, as you have stated before. The problem is how do you accomplish this, without regulations which force these companies to deliver the services they are selling, without penalizing policy holders or companies with people who actually need to use these services?To say that this is wrong and should be stopped is NOT ENOUGH! What would you propose to do? Please do not use the arguement about just changing insurance companies. Many people do not know that they are being taken advantage of until they are actually using their insurance. That is not the time to be looking for an honest Insurer who will actually give you what you paid for.Why is it wrong for the government to try to provide their citizens with a service that the private sector only looks at as a cash cow? Why is it wrong for EVERYONE in your great nation to expect a certain level of medical services. It is these types of things which make nations great. Holding out for services only provided by private industry for profit, and not by government for the necessity of their populations, in such a critical sector is a failure at the societal level. Where is the humanity in a civilization which prefers profit over the health and well being of their population as a whole?

im sure it is far smaller than .1% given the 1.6 billion people in the world that follow Islam

Yeah... but how many terrorists are there in comparison to the 6.7 billion people in the world. We're already looking for a needle in a heystack. And you can stop 99.999% of them. All it really takes is for 1 to get through and we'll all be having a completely different conversation.

i am familiar with this argument

Thomas Sowel (sp?) made a similar argument (more torture related though) in a very good one-liner:

How many American lives are you prepared to sacrifice, in order to spare a terrorist from experiencing distress?

it is a very difficult argument. what is interesting is that he seems to contradict himself when he talks about that decision i mentioned in one of the above posts (between Freedom and Utopian ideals) i used his one liner in that very post: If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.

Once again, I'm lost by your response. No idea who Thomas Sowel is and I'm certainly not talking about Utopia and Freedom. All I'm saying is that all it takes is another extremist to slip through and crash another plane into a building and our conversation changes from "how could they increase security" to "why didn't security catch this guy?"

And another post turns from the original subject into one of the Medical Insurance issue yet again! LMAOBoy some people sure know how to steer a topic off course every time !What started out as a question about terrorism turns into Medical insurance and the right of Insurance companies to make outrageous profits!! LMAO

And actually on this thread, the guy who started it is the one that steered us onto this topic. But seriously, would you consider 2.2% outrageous profit?

No I wouldn't. I would however suggest that like other investors, if this 2.2% didn't represent a very good return on investment... these guy's would be looking for somewhere else to invest. I don't cry any crocodile tears for the MASSIVE insurance companies. They are doing just fine, and since 9/11 they have been experiencing some fantastic returns.What with accounting being what it is, I wonder how accurate that 2.2% number is? Also what is it 2.2% of what?

Well the article it says that it is 2.2% of revenues in the latest annual measure. I don't feel sorry for these companies either, but to say something should be done about their outrageous profits is ridiculous. I know you did not say that so don't think that is directed towards you.

As to the thread derailing, does it really matter? I was actually just making a joke man.

I wonder if people are really railing against the profits of these companies or is it that they are making these kinds of profit while treating people so poorly. Having yourself cut off by your insurance company because you or a family member actually has to use that insurance is wrong. I know that you and Kuzi too, feel that this is wrong and should be stopped as well, as you have stated before. The problem is how do you accomplish this, without regulations which force these companies to deliver the services they are selling, without penalizing policy holders or companies with people who actually need to use these services?To say that this is wrong and should be stopped is NOT ENOUGH! What would you propose to do? Please do not use the arguement about just changing insurance companies. Many people do not know that they are being taken advantage of until they are actually using their insurance. That is not the time to be looking for an honest Insurer who will actually give you what you paid for.Why is it wrong for the government to try to provide their citizens with a service that the private sector only looks at as a cash cow? Why is it wrong for EVERYONE in your great nation to expect a certain level of medical services. It is these types of things which make nations great. Holding out for services only provided by private industry for profit, and not by government for the necessity of their populations, in such a critical sector is a failure at the societal level. Where is the humanity in a civilization which prefers profit over the health and well being of their population as a whole?

Well it is quite simple really. Reduce the cost of insurance and the cost of medical treatment all together and make it easier to pay for. First of all as Kuzi and I have both pointed out many times, goverment regulations have force medical insurance companies to cover things that insurance isn't meant to cover, like regular check ups and vaccinations. Insurance is supposed to cover risks and these things are NOT risks. Cut that out and insurance companies will be paying out billions less every year. Open insurance companies up to sell across state lines, providing many more options for people. If they are too lazy to do their research about a company then they are getting what they deserve. Personal responsibility really needs to be focused on a little bit in this country. Also TORT reform would do a lot to reduce the cost of medical expenses in general. Dr.s wouldn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect themselves every year.

The reason it IS WRONG for the government to provide this service is because that is not what our government is meant to do, and for our government to do this, it would require them to deprive us of our rights. That IS wrong and that is not what our government was set up to do. As has been said time and time and time again, our government was set up to protect our rights, and health care is not a right. It cannot ever be a right.

The government is doing it's duty then...if it is protecting citizens from insurance company abuse. I have no illusion that we will ever agree on this Puro. I do see your view's and don't disagree with some of them. It is just that we see the solution to the problem as being VERY different. That is not even to say that either would work or would not. Just different solutions to the same problem.

The government is doing it's duty then...if it is protecting citizens from insurance company abuse. I have no illusion that we will ever agree on this Puro. I do see your view's and don't disagree with some of them. It is just that we see the solution to the problem as being VERY different. That is not even to say that either would work or would not. Just different solutions to the same problem.

no really they are not!!! they are adding to it and they are infringing on my rights to do it. They are going to pass a law that requires me to buy health insurance or pay fine and go to jail, this has to be unconsititional, its absurd, Im all for the government doing something to make health care more affordable, but this is not even close to it. Insurance? this is not addressing the issue of the rising ridicilous ass cost of going to the doctor, this is just passing the buck on who is going to pay for it, Insurance is not health care. We should not being have this discussion this should not be even in the minds of the legislature to do.

The government is doing it's duty then...if it is protecting citizens from insurance company abuse. I have no illusion that we will ever agree on this Puro. I do see your view's and don't disagree with some of them. It is just that we see the solution to the problem as being VERY different. That is not even to say that either would work or would not. Just different solutions to the same problem.

I agree, but the solution being suggested in a government run health care option violates right of the people. The solutions I mentioned do not. You say the companies are abusing people, but they are not commiting any illegal abuse or even violating their rights in any way, because nobody has the right to medical coverage. These people are not being denied treatment, they are just being denied coverage to pay for this treatment. This health insurance legislation will not save a single life because someone will receive treatment they wouldn't have otherwise received.